Motherhood later in life is seen as a huge changeHoustonian sees benefits for society as well as families

Published 6:30 am, Monday, January 28, 2008

Elizabeth Gregory is director of the women's studies program at the University of Houston.

Elizabeth Gregory is director of the women's studies program at the University of Houston.

Photo: Thomas B. Shea

Big benefits seen in motherhood later in life

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

To measure how much life has changed, Elizabeth Gregory needed to look no further than her own life and the lives of many women around her.

"People don't have to choose one life," she says. "In the past, everybody had to have their kids when they were 21, and they had to have them with whoever was there. Now people have more options."

Gregory, director of the women's studies program at the University of Houston, turned a study of those options into a book, Ready: Why Women Are Embracing the New Later Motherhood (Basic Books, $26). She interviewed more than 100 women who waited until age 35 or later to have their first child. (She also included a few who had their first child at 34.)

Most of Gregory's subjects were affluent, and most were married, although the study also includes single mothers and lesbian couples. Some had children the old-fashioned way, while others relied upon high-tech fertility medicine or adoption.

The book is a positive portrayal of waiting, which Gregory says reflects a historic shift: One of every 12 babies born to first-time mothers in 2006 was born to a woman 35 or older. In 1970, the figure was one in 100.

Gregory, 50, says she didn't intend her book specifically to counteract economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett's controversial 2002 book Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children, which focused on the decline in women's fertility beginning in their late 20s and caused an uproar with its implication that women who wait until they are 35, 40 or older risk ending up without a baby.

But Hewlett's book didn't reflect the experience of Gregory or many women she knew. Gregory gave birth to her oldest daughter, Anna Peters, when she was 39. She and her husband later adopted a second daughter, Sophie.

Slow Cooker Breakfast Bake Is The Best Decision You'll Make This WeekendDelish

This Chicken Has A Crazy Secret IngredientDelish

Crescent Breakfast Squares Win The Brunch GameDelish

Gregory talked with the Chronicle's Jeannie Kever about her research and what it all means.

Q: When did this trend of older first-time motherhood start? Tell me a little about what's behind it.

A: There are two basic components. One of those is the birth-control pill, which was introduced in 1960. There had been birth control before, but this was the first widely available, reliable birth control, and that meant changes in women's fertility choices almost immediately. In the mid-'70s, you started seeing an upswing in this trend, people starting their families later. It's grown steadily ever since then.

The other thing is that people are living longer. You couldn't plan to start your family at 40 if, as in 1900, the average life expectancy was 47.

The world of business hasn't traditionally been family-friendly because it didn't have to be, but (that's changing) as women ... decided they would delay children until they got to a position where they could negotiate more of a family-friendly experience for themselves.

The average age of (a woman's) first birth in 1970 was 21. In 2006, it was 25.2. For college-educated women, it's 30. There's clearly been a decision by many people that, given the option, they want to sequence their lives differently than was possible in the past.

Q: Do you expect the trend to continue with women who are in their 20s or younger now?

A: Now that there are increasing numbers of women in positions to make policy, we will see whether they make changes or influence those around them to change the discussion of how we look at family-friendly (workplace) policies ... to a bigger vision that says we see family-building as a contribution to the commonwealth and we want to make it possible to do both.

Now younger people say, "We don't want to live the lives our parents had, where they were working all the time."

Q: How are 40-something first-time moms different from younger first-time moms?

A: People told me being ready (to have a child) was vital. Other people may feel ready earlier.

They had certain benefits: They were more financially stable. They had the self-confidence that comes with having accomplished things in the world. There was a higher frequency of marriage (for women who waited to have children), and that has an effect ... if there's someone there to share the work. There's a much higher frequency of "peer marriage," a higher level of women married to people with similar education and wages and a sense that they were both sharing the family tasks.

A lot of the women said they had seen their mothers stuck in marriages they couldn't leave because they didn't have the earning capacity to raise their kids if they left, and it was important to (the women she interviewed) to be in a position where they could leave if they wanted to.

They felt more ready to focus on family. ...

Q: What are some of the ramifications of older motherhood?

A: One is that women are getting to contribute in ways they never have before. They are getting to develop their skills and passions outside the field of motherhood in real ways for the first time.

Maybe we'll find ways to allow women to contribute without delaying (motherhood), but I think there's a huge positive in the personal development of the women, but also that the nation benefits in having this huge infusion into the talent pool.

Q: You acknowledge that fertility does decline for older women. Are there other drawbacks to waiting?

A: There's the lack of grandparent access. The older you are when you have your kids, the older your parents are when they become grandparents. ... They may be in need of care. The parents may be more involved in caring for the grandparents at the same time they're caring for kids.

In terms of their own planning, the (later) parents didn't want their children to have to be caring for them when the children were in their 20s. They were trying to be very alert about staying healthy and also putting away money for long-term care.